Static Main Menu

Balance of Terror and Balance of Power (Similarities and Dissimilarities)

Article shared by :

ADVERTISEMENTS:

AFK Organski has pointed out the following similarities and dissimilarities between the two:

(A) Similarities:

1. In both Balance of Power and Balance of Terror the nations are always involved in seeking to maximize their power.

2. Both interpret peace in terms of balance of power or terror which is reached through conscious attempts.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

3. Both believe that the vital interests of nations are in danger when the balance is upset.

4. Both involve the acceptance of such national policies which are in reality dangerous and risky.

5. Both accept military power as a means for maintaining the balance.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(B) Dissimilarities:

1. Balance of Power accepts resort to war as a means, balance of terror accepts only the threat of war or threat of nuclear weapons as a means for securing the balance.

2. Balance of power accepts armament race as a natural phenomenon, balance of terror seeks to limit or maintain a particular low level in armament race.

3. Alliances are used as tools of balance of power. However, these do not affect the balance of terror because no alliance can create a preponderance of power against a nuclear power.

4. Balance of Terror is very closely related to the concept of Deterrence. Balance of Power is a device of power management which can also act as a sort of deterrent against war and aggression.

Thus, both Balance of Power and Balance of Terror have several similarities as well as dissimilarities. After the end of Second World War balance of power became almost obsolete, and balance of terror came to replace it as a device of maintaining peace. The emergence of nuclear weapons, two super powers, three major nuclear powers, cold war, presence of weapons of mass destruction, and fear of a total war, all combined to produce a balance of terror.

However the balance of terror continued to have a doubtful validity both in the sphere of maintenance of peace and the regulation of the behaviour of states. With fear as its main background factor, balance of terror really failed to perform the function of peace-keeping. It acted more as a source of tensions, fear and distrust and less as a source of peace.

Fortunately now, the humankind has fully realized the dangers of balance of terror. The end of cold war and the emergence of process of close economic cooperation between East and West, have given rise to a positive qualitative change in contemporary international relations.

At present peaceful coexistence, peaceful conflict-resolution and cooperation, and sustainable development through democratization, liberalisation, denuclearization, demilitarization and development are the principles lines upon which the international relations of the 21st century are being developed.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Politics of Balance of Terror has suffered a welcome set back. But for securing its final end, all the nations should unite their energies and efforts. They should not allow unipolarism to dominate the world. Full and comprehensive Nuclear Disarmament and global agreement on arms control must be secured for finally ending the balance of terror in international relations.